Insurer Held Accountable for Misleading Explanation of Policy to Elderly Traveller
Insurer Held Accountable for Misleading Explanation of Policy to Elderly Traveller
The information on this website is general in nature and does not take into account your objectives, financial situation, or needs. Consider seeking personal advice from a licensed adviser before acting on any information.
An elderly gentleman, who submitted a claim on behalf of his injured wife, has successfully resolved his dispute against his insurance company.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority ruled in favor of the complainant, finding that he had been misled into thinking he had coverage.
The claim was initiated after the man's wife had a severe fall down a flight of stairs during their trip to Thailand. She sustained multiple injuries, including a fractured hip and head trauma, which required her to be hospitalized for more than three weeks. Additionally, to ensure a safe journey back to Melbourne, the claimant had to purchase a business class flight for his wife, allowing her to lie flat and minimize the risk of complications.
Zurich Australia denied the claim based on the policy's exclusion of overseas medical expenses for individuals over 80 years old. However, Zurich claimed to have offered an "upgrade" to the policy, providing medical coverage for individuals over 80, which the claimant did not opt for.
The complainant obtained the policy through a local branch of his bank, referred to as CB, which offered it as a benefit for specific credit card holders. At the time of purchasing the policy, both the complainant and his wife were 81 and 80 years old, respectively.
Making an effort to follow the correct procedure given his limited computer skills, Mr. E visited the local CB branch on June 30. He expected the staff to guide him through the application process for the policy.
Mr. E alleged that the CB staff failed to inform him about the need to "upgrade" the policy in order to ensure adequate coverage for medical expenses. He left the bank under the impression that he and his wife were appropriately insured, even receiving an email confirmation from the insurer stating that the policy had been activated.
AFCA considered the claimant's assertion that a bank teller, referred to as SH, had assisted him during the application process. Despite Zurich's objections, the ruling ombudsman agreed with Mr. E's account.
The ruling acknowledged that SH had neglected to disclose the requirement to "upgrade" the policy, necessary for the claimant and his wife to have coverage, despite the bank being aware of their age. It stated that although SH's actions were unintentional, CB caused the insured party to believe they had suitable coverage.
"Given CB's knowledge of the complainants' age, this omission should have been disclosed," AFCA stated.
"SH's oversight significantly contributed to Mr. E's unwitting failure to apply for the policy upgrade. Furthermore, this omission induced Mr. E to enter into an insurance contract that he believed provided adequate coverage. However, unbeknownst to him, the policy was essentially useless in terms of overseas medical expense coverage for both him and Mrs. E."
Zurich argued that CB employees were not authorized representatives and thus were unable to offer any advice on the credit card insurance being offered. However, AFCA dismissed this argument as an attempt by the insurer to absolve itself of CB's shortcomings, stating that the bank acted, at least partially, in the insurer's interest.
The decision mandates that Zurich accept the claim and provides a compensation of $4000 ($2000 for each complainant) for non-financial losses resulting from the insurer's claim denial and subsequent challenges.
"Throughout the claims process, the insurer's stance has unfortunately caused the complainants, particularly Mr. E, to feel accused of dishonesty," expressed AFCA.
"They also feel that their recollections have been questioned. Moreover, the insurer's position in this claim has been based on flimsy evidence."
Please Note: We do not endorse any specific products or companies. Some content is sourced from third parties, including press releases, and may not be independently verified for accuracy or completeness.
Australian travellers with pre-existing medical conditions have been given a timely reminder to look beyond price when arranging travel insurance, with recently updated consumer guidance placing renewed emphasis on disclosure, medical assessments and policy wording. - read more
Delta Insurance’s move onto Ebix Australia’s Sunrise Exchange is a useful signal for real estate agencies watching how business insurance is being distributed. The underwriting agency has made its cyber and management liability products available through the platform for the first time, using Entsia technology and an accelerated accreditation pathway. Further products are expected to follow, which points to continuing momentum behind digital placement for financial lines cover. - read more
A recent insurance dispute involving a faulty vaccine fridge has a useful warning for Australian restaurant and café owners: a broken fridge is not always enough to secure a payout. In the case, reported on 26 June 2026, a business policyholder argued that a refrigeration unit had moved outside the required temperature range and could not be restored through resets. The owner believed an internal control component had failed and sought cover under an equipment failure section of the policy. - read more
Vero has entered the residential strata market with a nil-commission product aimed at addressing some of the placement challenges facing owners corporations, particularly in higher-risk regions. The product will initially be available through intermediaries in Far North Queensland and Darwin, with a broader national rollout planned in stages. - read more
A recent Australian Financial Complaints Authority decision is a timely reminder for tradies that the words in a policy schedule can matter just as much as the headline sum insured. The dispute involved a business that had tools and a trailer stolen from a worksite, then challenged the insurer’s payout after receiving far less than it believed the policy should provide. - read more
When it comes to life insurance, a pre-existing condition refers to any medical condition or illness that you have been diagnosed with before applying for a life insurance policy. - read more
Being prepared when it comes to life insurance claims can make a world of difference. Proper preparation helps you prevent delays and denials, ensuring that your loved ones receive the financial support promised by your policy without unnecessary hold-ups. By paying attention to the details, you can streamline the claims process, giving you and your family peace of mind during what is already a stressful time. - read more
Life insurance is an essential safety net for families, providing financial security when it's needed the most. As your family grows, the importance of having a well-structured life insurance policy becomes even more critical. In the busy lives we lead today, it’s easy to overlook this crucial aspect of financial planning. However, ensuring your coverage meets your family's evolving needs is vital. - read more
When you’re young, life is all about new experiences and making plans for a promising future. While factors like travel, career, and relationships often take centre stage, one aspect often overlooked is life insurance. It might seem like something to consider later in life, but starting a policy while you're young can be a savvy financial move. - read more
As the landscape of finance and personal security evolves in Australia, the importance of being insured has never been more prominent. In a world of changing family dynamics, economic pressures, and higher living costs, life insurance stands as a bastion of support ensuring the well-being of loved ones in the event of unforeseen circumstances. - read more
Start Here !
Apply now for your free Insurance assessment and price comparisons!
Knowledgebase
Insurance Claim: Notification to an insurance company requesting payment of an amount due under the terms of the policy.
No comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts.